At the very least, symbolism in passing gun laws

Perhaps Vincent Carroll is right in his assertion that proposed gun controls will not cause the decrease in mass shootings or gun violence that regulation advocates claim. Maybe those controls are more symbolic than substantive. The cigarette ban for minors does not prevent young people from smoking. However, it does represent a national commitment toward improving the health of our youth and the adults they grow into.

Maybe the significance of gun control legislation is that it represents a national rejection of the idea that guns are a necessary component of our society, that we are no longer blinded by the glorification of the role of guns in the settlement of the West, and we accept that limitations on gun ownership are not an assault on the Second Amendment.

David Wolf, Lakewood

This letter was published in the April 11 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

You can’t compare teen smoking to gun legislation. For one thing, smoking isn’t a Constitutional right. But the right to bear arms is. Also, we no longer glorify guns, but we do glorify violence. And we have passed HIPA laws so that we can no longer find out who might be a threat to society, ala James Holmes. The only difference between the theater shooter and the Houston campus stabber is the choice of the weapon.

So, the over 100 killed in Oklahoma City are downplayed because it wasn’t a gun?

reinhold23

Boo! Hiss!

I for one, recall no downplaying of the OKC bombing.

thor

So then, it isn’t only guns that kill large amounts of people. Whew, I was worried that OK City was just a small thing instead of the horrible thing that it really was and that the threat of a bomb being exploded by a mentally deranged person is just as real a consequence.

I’m not sure where you are going with your point, so I will make my own. I’m not sure why people armed with box cutters (not the same as a knife) overcame two jets. My own opinion is that the airlines were handling the situation like they did in the past where an airline was hijacked and flown somewhere, but not into a building. At least the passengers in flight 93 acted correctly and overcame the hijackers and only the plane was lost and not hundreds of other people.

toohip

Disagree thor, 2nd amendment is not some blanket “right” to “bear” any weaponry the NRA or gun advocates like you feel you want. We’ve always had some form of gun control laws, however weak or “unenforceable.”

I was waiting for some gun advocate like yourself to mention the Houston stabbings. . as your guy Reagan said, “there you go again!” trying to resurrect the “inanimate object” argument again. Gee, how many people were killed in this “knife rampage?” None. Why a knife is a poor killing weapon. There are no drive-by knifings, or large blade-capacity knives. It’s another straw man argument. I’m sure you have a home defense “knife” to protect you and your family from gang members!

guest

You’re right. The worst school massacre was the Bath Michigan School Massacre of 1927 in which explosives killed 38 children and 6 adults. There were no constitutional questions, just a person deciding to kill using an inanimate object.

toohip

True, worst school massacre, and under Mr. Baker’s theory, all mass school killers would be using explosives rather than guns. But history shows this not to be true. School killers use assault weapons with large capacity magazines because they are more efficient, and they are “legal” and easy to acquire, unlike explosive. Try buying a large quantity of fertilizer!

But you’re back to the false inductive reasoning again. If A and B contain X, therefore A and B are the same, and if A contains Y, then B must contain Y. If you can kill a lot of people with explosives and (assault-style) guns, therefore explosives and guns are the same, when in fact they are not because one you can’t legally acquire the other you can. And then there’s the argument that explosives (even do-it-yourself types) aren’t easy to apply in a school (today) like a firearm is, and has been demonstrated. How many “school bombings” have we seen since this 1927 event?

And regarding law and “constitutional questions” after this incident in 1927, the killer used pyrotol an incendiary explosive used and sold legally for farmers for burning debris and excavation, and 3 boxes of dynamite – all of which are illegal to obtain today. So it appears “the laws” were different back then, the the “2nd Amendment right” to own explosives eventually was change. . . call it “explosives control?” And this seemed to have worked! How many school and mass killing explosives do you we find today. It required McVeigh to create his own explosive from fertilizer which also is controlled today. So as a society, we learn from our broad freedoms and rights, that not all of them though “constitutionally protected” are what ‘we the people’ intended and we pass “regulations” to ban, restrict, or regulate them. Hence the progress of our nation (state) with gun control laws.

thor

The inanimate argument makes more sense then the fact that Chicago has the toughest gun control laws and the highest gun related murders. Why doesn’t the President go to Chicago and give a gun control speech. And why he is there, he can explain to the large numbers of blacks there why he condones the press ignoring the black on black gun related murders there.

I love it when someone like yourself talks about the right to bear arms having to do with any kind of weapon. That is ridiculous. We have long ago banned automatic weapons for civilian use. And I’m not a gun advocate. I love to shoot, my 50 cal Hawkin muzzle loader. My bow an arrows would be more useful in home defense.

A knife is not a poor killing weapon. People die to knife wounds all the time. Work on your argument and come back later.

toohip

No, you’re using false inductive reasoning again, thor. Just because Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws isn’t a direct correlation that they don’t work. Don’t make me drag out the tired “speed limit” analogy!

Maybe President Django doesn’t go to Chicago because they already have serious gun controls and are making more efforts than cities who don’t?
Thor, are you really concerned about “the press ignoring black on black” crime? Excuse my generalization of your beliefs, but you don’t necessarily exhibit similar concerns here.
Sorry, thor I guess my reference of my “any weaponry” justified by the 2nd Amendment must of confused your or it was an opportunity to twist my meaning? Most realize I was taking about the extreme “firearm” weaponry of recent times including military and hybrid assault weapons, huge capacity magazines, and the virtual unchecked sales and exchange of this “weaponry” in just this country.
So because we ban “full” automatic weapons, that’s safety enough to consider a “semi” automatic weapon as much more safe? How fast can you pull the trigger. I realize on your single-shot Hawkins and bow, you’re limited, but that’s by some personal choice. Neither of which weaponry is considered useful for home defense or “gang/gov’t invasion” of your home? I thought you were smarter about weaponry to not use a “bow and arrow” for home defense, but I must of misjudged you? And where are all the gunnies who made fun of DeGette’s faux paux on magazines, ridiculing you for your choice of a home defense weapon? Choices!
How many people die of knife wounds vs gunshot wounds? Which is a more effective killing tool? If attacked by an intruder would you prefer they had a gun or a knife? Have you heard the one about the guy who brought a knife to a gun fight? or the guy who used a bow and arrow for a home defense weapon? ;o)

Tbone

How many have died to kinfe wounds vs gun violence?

Chicago may have one of the highest numbers of gun related crimes, but that’s because Chicago is one of the largest Cities in the US. Of course large cities will have more violence than small ones. On a per capita basis, states with the most relaxed laws have the highest rates of gun violence.

Seriously, work on your argument and come back later. Maybe some more of that socratic dialogue will help next time.

toohip: The 9/11 hijackers used edged weapons (box cutters), not guns, to mastermind the death of almost 3,000 people. QED. OKC…fertilizer. You have no argument.

toohip

Ah, more irrational inductive reasoning. I didn’t mention that the 9/11 hijackers used the same (inanimate object) weapons as the Houston campus, or the since regulated fertilizer bombs in OKC. . therefore by your deduction – I have no argument? Wow! (and we wonder why we call them gun-“nuts!”).
Here’s a fact for you Chris. We didn’t have to even wait until after 9/11 to ban box cutters on airplanes because of the danger of hijacking. The passengers on flight 93 figured this out from reports from family about what the hijackers were doing with their box cutters on other planes – crashing them into buildings – and they became proactive and attacked the hijackers (albeit unsuccessfully). But since box cutters weren’t designed to kill people and there are very few (successful) killings or attacks by box cutters to justify banning or regulating box cutters, we ‘trust’ this inanimate object to not become a mass-killing device (why none of the 14 victims died).
So, I guess this suggests that YOU . . have no argument. . that box cutters are just like assault rifles and other guns, because both have the potential to kill, but only one is designed so.

toohip

“we no longer glorify guns”? I guess that AR-15 with large capacity mag is strictly for hunting and home protection, right?
And HIPAA laws protect the dangerously mentally ill who “could” get a firearm and be a threat to society??? I don’t think this is what HIPAA laws were intended for it was for privacy. In other words thor, if you have a loved one suffering from mental health issues, the gov’t can’t put them on a list for the public (your neighbors and friends) to know about your families (or you?) private life. Sorry, thor but mentally insane people are not the leading cause of gun violence, nor are every day clinnically “sane” people with mild mental health traits, like anger management issues. Check your facts.
So if you want to protect the public from the mental health types, are YOU willing to be tested before you buy a firearm, as a solution to your broad accusation and that of the NRA gun-right. . .or do you want to just “talk the talk?”
The main difference between the Aurora shooter and the Houston campus “stabber” (used a box cutter!) was that no one died from the latter. And all you could see in the difference was the “choice of weapons?” How many “mass stabbings” have you read about? Drive-by stabbings? thor, either you can’t see the forest for the trees here, or you have an ulterior agenda, and to give you some credit, I believe it’s the latter.

ThePyro

Jeezoots…really? The enforcement and credible gains achieved by a law demonstrate our national commitment, not the simple passing of the law. If the latter were true, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994 would still be standing and we wouldn’t be having this debate; there’d be no 21st Amendment; and the Defense of Marriage Act wouldn’t be just a flimsy sheet of parchment waiting to be overturned. Until a law stands the test of time, it’s only symbolic that some current movement has the ear of the government.

toohip

so. . you’re giving the gun-right the argument that since the 2nd Amendment has “stood the test of time,” therefore it’s not really “symbolic” of a generation of 18th century, powered wig-wearing, misogynistic forefathers, who were fighting a tyrannical (foriegn) gov’t with the same weaponry as the gov’t had, and with a “militia” made up of the citizenry, who won and reasoned that under the same set of standards (current weaponry equal to the gov’t) this should be prevented in the future so they set forth this 2nd Amendment, and that also applicable today important “3rd” amendment about “quartering troops” in private house during time of war or peace? I guess those forefathers and this sacred document of which this brief, time-applicable amendment(s) refer to. . are directly intended for the massive numbers and massive carnage potential of the weaponry we have today in the public sector – virtually unchecked – today, and we should accept the “collateral damage” this abused amendment has caused – because it’s about our “constitutional rights?” Just asking.

ThePyro

Well, hang on…you’re inherently imbuing your question with derogatory intent. The 2nd Amendment has stood the test of time, yes, but I’m not giving the gun-right anything. They’ve already come to that conclusion. Even if I was conceding it, there is no possible way I’d be impacting their level of fervor, or yours for that matter.
The next six and half lines of text? All heated rhetoric that goes well beyond the point I was making, so I’m ignoring it. All the text after that…*shrug*…you’d have to ask someone who dares to suppose what guys who have been dead for over 200 years meant.

toohip

Is this a joke? Symbolic? The cigarette ban doesn’t prevent underage from smoking? Where did you get this choice tidbit? So if a kid goes to buy cigarettes and is rarely ID’d – the law doesn’t work? Same for the kid who lacks a fake ID or lacks the courage or the older appearance to buy cigs. And speed limits don’t stop people from speeding? Ask those who have lost their driver’s license or paying outrageous insurance premiums. You can’t prove a negative so this is just myth, used as a launch point to suggest a more “serious” ban – gun control – isn’t worth trying. Just because we can agree, these are one of the easier laws to break – because the police aren’t spending time staking out convenience stores to catch kids buying cigarettes illegally – doesn’t mean the law doesn’t work. Nor can you just generalize and suggest the same applies for the gun control laws. We can agree law enforcement isn’t going to invest much time in catching someone with a magazine in excess of 15 rounds or a gun sale that requires a background check. . .but you can be sure the police and DA’s will use these “unenforceable laws” to “pile on” a person who’s broken a more serious law, or nail someone they want to arrest or comply to cooperate. These are laws that aren’t trying to prevent kids from smoking or people from speeding – they’re intended to SAVE LIVES. If they save one live, they’re worth any symbolism..

If it saves one life it’s worth it? Well, guns have been used to save a lot more than one life. QED.

Oh, we need to ban cars right now. It will save thousands of lives. And showers. If there were no showers, no one would slip and fall in them. It would save much more than one life.

Tbone

Cars are heavily regulated. Try again. How many people have died in showers compared to gun violence?

ThePyro

Well, since you asked…the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention website indicates that about 16,000 people die in the tub each year, including everything from drowning to head injuries from falls. Those are old statistics (back to the late 1990s), but our showering habits don’t change that much.
The statistics peterpi pointed me toward from The Guardian newspaper a while back indicates that about 9,200 people were killed in gun-related violence [EDIT] in the United States.

So, if any hitmen are reading this, you might be able to cover your tracks better if your M.O. is bacon grease on the porcelain instead of a sniper rifle.

Tbone

9000? That varies significantly from the commonly cited number of 30,000.

For tub deaths, I found 350 per year. Not sure which “CDC” you’re referring to, but I found from 2005-2009, a total of about 3500 non-boating related drownings occured.

350 per year in the tub. Looks like you’re including injuries.

So that’s 30,000 to 350.

guest

You get the number jacked up to 30,000 when you add in suicides. If you consider gun-related violence to be someone other than yourself shooting you dead (which makes sense to me) the number is more like 9200.

To get anywhere near the number for tub deaths, you would have to add in falls for people over 65 who broke their hip or their back and later died from complication from that fall.

ThePyro

Upon further review of the stats – you’re absolutely right about the bathtub stuff. My bad.
But “commonly cited”? C’mon….you’re better than that.

toohip

and how are these lives “saved?” by killing another person, the so-called bad person with a gun? So you’re agreeing that guns are designed to kill, sometimes illegally and immorally, and sometimes legally and for moral reasons? OK, now let’s break down the use of these guns by “WHO” are employing their use and what their role is in society to “legally” own these guns. Military and police own assault-style weapons for the purpose of security – national and public. As a democratic gov’t of we the people, we “authorize” them to use this weaponry, and the soldiers and police all have oversight to make sure they don’t abuse his right. Now the public has the same right to own the same weaponry (well not the full automatic weapons and bigger True, worst school massacre, and under Mr. Baker’s theory, all mass school killers would be using explosives rather than guns. But history shows this not to be true. School killers use assault weapons with large capacity magazines because they are more efficient, and they are “legal” and easy to acquire, unlike explosive. Try buying a large quantity of fertilizer!

But you’re back to the false inductive reasoning again. If A and B contain X, therefore A and B are the same, and if A contains Y, then B must contain Y. If you can kill a lot of people with explosives and (assault-style) guns, therefore explosives and guns are the same, when in fact they are not because one you can’t legally acquire the other you can. And then there’s the argument that explosives (even do-it-yourself types) aren’t easy to apply in a school (today) like a firearm is, and has been demonstrated. How many “school bombings” have we seen since this 1927 event? And regarding law and “constitutional questions” after this incident in 1927 but the police pretty much use the same weaponry as what the public can legally acquire. So is this leading to the “good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun” NRA argument? We’ve been down that fantasy road before!

Another false reasoning argument that if A leads to X and Y, and X is illegal and not preferred, but Y is preferred and societal benefit, then simply because “X happens” :o) we should sacrifice Y to save us from A causing X. i.e, If car accidents kill people, then we should ban cars to save lives. But cars weren’t designed to kill people they were designed for transportation, and as a society we accept the negatives of car accident to reap a greater cause of efficient transportation. And contrary to your argument we all ready accept that the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted as a right to gun ownership, and that so many guns in our society leads to one of the highest gun violence/death rates in the world, but we want to keep the positives of hunting, sport, and home defense guns. And I believe a majority agrees with that including myself. But it’s not that simple.

Just like certain types of cars manufactured led to more deaths in accidents the gov’t (we the people) stepped in and either banned, regulated or forced change in how automobiles were designed as a RESULT of this negative experience – so is “we the people” stepping in and suggesting that these exceptions to hunting rifles, sport guns, and common home defense guns, i.e., the assault style weapons, large capacity magazines, and unchecked sales of any guns or ammo by anyone, including mentally ill and criminals – are big enough negative that the public wants to regulate or rather “control” them. This is how a modern society progresses, and if you’re not on board, then maybe you’re not a patriot?

guest

Can’t you expand a little bit on this!?!

BTW, your first premise was incorrect (hence the rest of it is very questionable). You said: ” So you’re agreeing that guns are designed to kill, sometimes illegally and immorally, and sometimes legally and for moral reasons?”

Guns are not designed to kill either legally or illegally, morally or immorally. The are a weapon and how they are used is entirely out of the hands of the gun designers and in the hands of the person who has the gun. I would guess that most people who own a gun do so for protection. There are some hunters and some gun enthusiasts, but the vast majority of people buy a gun for the same reason they buy health insurance. They have it in case they need it.

toohip

So. . what are guns designed for? I believe hunting is really a more legitimate form of “killing” because they’re “intended” (but not always) to kill animals. And while there are a few “sport or competition” firearms they’re so rare and expensive no one really wants one unless they’re heavily into competition marksmanship. That leaves quite a few other firearms, that don’t fit into these categories, and are left to kill people, but for “moral” reasons, aka . . home defense, conceal carry, military and security (police) applications, and for “playing solldier (aka hybrid and military style assault weaponry).

guest

No, they are like insurance policies. I have life insurance. I didn’t buy it because I intend on dying in the near future. I bought it in case I die in the near future.

As for playing soldier, you do that with paintball guns.

primafacie

And maybe it’s the acceptance of unicorns as household pets.

Or it could be, Mr. Wolf, that the significance of this whole brouhaha is nothing more than principled advocates holding firm. And that’s a good thing.

toohip

of course the obligatory unrelated false statement that none of us have a clue what it has to do with gun control! But I think what prima is dancing around with “principled advocates holding firm,” is code for “stubborn.”

Fowler

You’re getting off script here and obviously haven’t seen the memo – it’s no longer called “gun control”; it’s now call “gun violence prevention”. That sounds less threatening to gun owners and hides the fact that the real agenda is empowering the government ban guns it doesn’t like (an ever-expanding list ala Connecticut). Same theory as changing “global warming” to “climate change” when the facts didn’t fit the rhetoric.

toohip

I’m sorry but us libs are going to have to dismiss your opinion and viewpoint, ala DeGette, because you’re not using the “proper terminology.”
/sar

If you want to take some to the glorification away from guns, take the “assault rifles’ away from police, require police to return to using “Dick Tracy” revolvers, and make police forgo the ninja masks, fancy guns, body armor and tanks on SWAT teams. Indeed, why should police be exempt from gun laws that everyone else must obey?
If we keep cigarette ads off TV, make TV use bolts action rifles and six-shot revolvers as their weapons of choice for police and criminals. Ban any show that reports or features mass killings. Advertising works!! Mentally ill people (and lots of just ordinary people) replicate what the see modeled for them on TV. Indeed broadcaster are “stewards” of the Public’s airwaves. The Public can regulate what is shown of the airwaves we own without violating anyone rights of Free Speech.
When is anyone going to voice aloud these obvious actions to take to reduce gun violence. “Gun Control” measure will not reduce real life incidents. “Gun Control” measures will only hurt, worry and alienate decent, law-abiding fellow citizens. Stop hurting your fellow Americans!!!

toohip

This is the classic inductive reasoning arguments based on the argument of fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. (“deep?” probably). This is a very familiar response by the gun-right who lack facts to justify their agenda, therefore they “induce” others to their believe by false inductive reasoning that if A happens occasionally because of B, then A happens all the time.

If assault rifles are glorification of firearms, and police use assault weapons, therefore the police should not be allowed to use assault weapons so the public won’t be influenced by the glorification police and their weaponry. The fallacy here is I don’t see people wanting to be “cop wannabes” but more like “combat solder wannabes” who also use assault weapons – that which is designed to more efficiently kill people and in larger quantities. We trust soldiers and police to use assault weapons because they are trained and regulated by law and oversight in the performance of their duties. Not so with everyday citizens who “believe” they need this same weaponry either to “play” with, or put to actual use in some grand gang home-style invasion or the more familiar prepared war against an oppressive (jack booted) government (“established militia”).

If cigarette ads glorify smoking, therefore the public seeing assault weapons used by police will glorify assault weapons increasing their attraction. False reasoning. The

toohip

The gun-right needs to “get off the pipe” of these fallacy arguments, which is just another form of fear mongering and irrational reasoning. The NRA-fearing, spineless Dems, including Obama are not asking for much in the way of gun control – more background checks (NRA agreement), reducing firepower with limiting magazine capacity (limiting gun efficiency, but retaining enough efficiency for private use), and attempting to do away with deadly military-style assault weaponry, designed specifically for killing efficiency, repetitive killing, and war.

If you’re a pro-gun advocate who possesses firearms for hunting, sport shooting, and home defense. . how does this so negatively impact you? Gun control laws have been enacted and supported by the courts for centuries (e.g., in many 1800’s western towns you checked your gun before entering), so this is not a violation of anyone’s constitutional rights.

If you accept the paranoia and the obtuse interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that it’s intended as a safeguard to defend the public from a tyrannical government. . well, then you need to re-visit your argument about mental health as a cause of gun violence.

Robtf777

“At the very least, symbolism in passing gun laws>”

============

Symbolism?

Like the Federal Defense of Marriage Act is now just “symbolism”?

Like Federal Laws regarding Marijuana are now simply “symbolism”?

Like being ANTI-Death Penalty is merely “symbolism” when someone is also Pro-Death-Via-Abortion-As-A-Choice?

Like “In God We Trust” is merely an out-dated “symbolism”?

Like when our Founding Fathers dated the Constitution of the United States “in the year of our Lord…..”……that was only “symbolism” and didn’t really mean anything to them…..or to us?

If “guns laws” are only touchy-feely, goodie-two-shoes, “symbolism” of Liberalism…….that only makes Liberals feel better about themselves because they think that they accomplished something…….then putting the words “in the year of our Lord” was a lot quicker…..and just as much as an apparent complete waste of time to Liberals and the Liberal Ideology.

Dan is right. Gun advocates using physical threats have no place in this discussion and to us responsible owners more harm than good.

toohip

Wow! The most obvious realit and surprising statement I’ve heard from the gun-right in a long time. So you DO realize it’s not about all gun owners or all guns? So why are you universally against all gun control? Seems hypocritical to us.

thor

Us?

toohip

the “usual ‘contributors” (vs “the usual suspects” ;o)

toohip

Is gun control in violation of one’s constitutional rights? Fact: no because the courts have upheld most gun control laws. Including in the early 1800’s out west where laws required strangers to check their guns when entering the town. A better argument might be “is our right to own guns getting out of control, as we see millions of military style assault weapons with huge (not “large”) capacity magazines, hybrid assault style weaponry even the military won’t touch, and unchecked sales of firearms and ammunition even over the internet? (this is without mentioning the carnage this weaponry causing today, increasing, and setting the U.S. apart from the rest of the world).

Is gun control an inconvenience?

Argument: “high capacity magazines make guns more ‘efficient.’

Agree, but is “gun efficiency” a relative issue to accepted PRIVATE gun use: hunting, target
and sport shooting, competition shooting, and home defense? No. Is “gun efficiency” relative to police and military operations? Yes.

Argument: “universal background checks are just more government regulation, reduce the profit of gun manufacturers imposing restrictions on “who” can buy guns therefore reducing gun sales, and this will lead directly to all guns being registered so the gov’t can know where to come take them away.”

Yet the NRA is “for” background checks, but only for private gun shops, and not gun shows, internet sales, and private sales? Cars have to be regulated by the govt for safety and other reasons to “protect the public.” Guns are not regulated in their quality of manufacture. I have to have training, license (I have to pay for), and demonstrate competency and safety in it’s operation. Gun owners do not have to do any of this, unless in some states they want to conceal carry their guns into the public environment. The NRA want’s blame people not guns, and in particular “mentally ill” people. But the gun-right doesn’t want to “pay” to help mentally ill people to lessen their public impact or impact to themselves. Nor do they want to screen (background check) people for mental health issues – because they themselves would have to pass the test, and well, you know. And the paranoia of a “tyrannical” gov’t turning on it’s people while not demonstrated for the last couple centuries, the possibility it could “fails” the objective here in that even semi-auto assault style rifles and large capacity magazines would be no match for the most powerful military in the world, with it’s aircraft including drones, missiles, ships, and did I mention “nukes?” Fortunately an extreme small minority actually believe it could happen, but the rest use it as a talking point. The rest is movie and book fiction (aka “Red Dawn”).

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.